Restricted is Not Always Lower

[King Glorious]

I was just reading something else and it struck me again how much emphasis people place on things that really aren't important. We always hear people saying how important it is for 3yos to prove themselves against older horses or for females to prove it against males and I just don't get it. Last year, Goldikova, as a 3yo filly, couldn't beat fellow 3yo filly Zarkava. So what did it prove for her to beat older males in the BC Mile? This year, Summer Bird has beaten older males in the JCGC but couldn't beat a 3yo filly in the Haskell. Zenyatta might win the BC Classic and Rachel beat older males in the Woodward but what people will remember is that they never faced each other. When will people start realizing that it's the competition that you face and how good you are that means more than the age or sex of said competition?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I was just reading something else and it struck me again how much emphasis people place on things that really aren't important. We always hear people saying how important it is for 3yos to prove themselves against older horses or for females to prove it against males and I just don't get it. Last year, Goldikova, as a 3yo filly, couldn't beat fellow 3yo filly Zarkava. So what did it prove for her to beat older males in the BC Mile? This year, Summer Bird has beaten older males in the JCGC but couldn't beat a 3yo filly in the Haskell. Zenyatta might win the BC Classic and Rachel beat older males in the Woodward but what people will remember is that they never faced each other. When will people start realizing that it's the competition that you face and how good you are that means more than the age or sex of said competition?

You're trying to refute rules of thumbs with what most would considered exceptions to those rules.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

You're trying to refute rules of thumbs with what most would considered exceptions to those rules.

I get that and I agree with you. But that's kinda the point I was making. People don't seem to understand that just because a horse did something that seems exceptional doesn't make it true. It takes further examination and old rules don't always apply. Take Rachel's Woodward win. While it was a nice effort on her part, I get so tired of people saying that she beat older males as if that made it extra tough to win. I felt, as did a lot of others, that either the Travers against her own age or the Beldame (with the possible field including Music Note and Icon Project) would have, on paper, been tougher assignments. Instead of taking on the toughest task, they took on the easiest but because of the rule of thumb, she's given extra credit. People have been wanting to see Zenyatta take on the boys for the longest and she'll get some extra credit for doing so if she goes in the Classic. What if Rachel and Icon Project were in the Distaff though? Would she still get the extra credit for facing the boys when her toughest race would have been in her own division? Rules of thumb are good to have as long as they aren't applied blindly.

[RolloTomasi]

I think the CA sprinter you were thinking of may have been Long Range Missile.

Was like 4 for 4 running through his conditions, then pointed for the Malibu or Bing Crosby and went on the shelf with a fever according to trainer Ron Ellis.

Of course he never returned.